Keven Ann Willey, Editor of the editorial page:
I don't have enough information to know.
Frankly, I'm rather surprised by the choice. My cursory read seems to indicate that he has no experience as a university president, no connection to Baylor and isn't Baptist. None of those by itself is a disqualifier. But taken together - and combined with the white-hot reaction his name sparks among much of America - they make me raise an eyebrow.
Does Baylor really know what its doing? The board hasn't exactly a sleek and flawless reputation when it comes to selecting presidents.
On the other hand, I think it's unfair to gauge Starr's potential as president solely on the role he played in the Clinton investigation. We can debate whether his investigation was appropriate or not - and there's a wide array of opinion across that front - but more significant to this issue to me is the fact that his Clinton action overshadows everything else about Ken Starr. There's simply a lot more to Starr than this and until I refresh my memory about the totality of his experience and understand more clearly specifically what the Baylor board expects of the next president, I will reserve judgment.
Mike Hashimoto, Assistant editorial page editor:
If the criticism of Ken Starr's hiring at Baylor is that he's "divisive," "too divisive" or "so divisive it makes me want to puke," isn't the use of "divisive" kind of code for "person I really disagree with, as do others like me"?
If it were 2013 (or, if you prefer, 2018) and some university somewhere hired Barack Obama as its president, would it be fair comment and criticism to dismiss him as "divisive"? America, after all, is more polarized politically than at any point since 1900, polls show, and that division can be traced directly to Obama's policies and positions. (Answer: No, it wouldn't be fair, but I digress.)
If another university, for whatever reason, thought Al Sharpton would make a fine president, would we be so quick to toss out "divisive" as a way to say, "Oh, my gosh, no"? Like Starr, it's unfortunate that many people know Sharpton for one case, Tawana Brawley. You may agree or disagree with his tactics in that case or anything else he has taken up in the years since, but I'd argue he seems a lot more "divisive" to those who disagree with him.
Starr is a constitutional lawyer who has served as dean of the Pepperdine University law school since 2004 and before that was U.S. solitictor general and appointed to a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Yes, he's known outside Malibu almost solely for his independent prosecution of allegations against Bill Clinton, but there's a lot more to him than that. Whether Starr proves "divisive" as Baylor's president should have a lot more to do with how he handles that complex job than our preconceived notions, but that's probably not the America we live in.
Michael Landauer, Assistant editorial page editor:
Honestly, I don't know. But it doesn't automatically strike me as a bad choice. He's a great legal mind and has a good reputation. I expect this to be especially good for the Baylor Law School. I mean, setting aside any opinions you have about Whitewater and the Clinton investigation, if you told me Baylor would hire a president who is a former federal judge, a former Solicitor General of the United States, a former Pepperdine Law School dean and an accomplished author and scholar, I'd be more than willing to give the guy a chance to prove he's a good fit. Now, is trading in the beaches of Malibu for the plains of Central Texas a smart choice? Not so sure ...
Nicole Stockdale, Assistant editorial page editor:
My knee-jerk reaction was to recoil as such a divisive pick after the last president was fired for failing to unify the campus. But, really, this choice isn't about sticking it to liberals or staking out a new ultra-conservative mindset at Baylor; it's about picking the best possible president for Baylor.
Not knowing who Starr was up against, it's tough to say whether he was the best choice. But given his experience as dean of Pepperdine Law School and the fact that his appointed role in the Clinton impeachments is just one item on a long resume, I'm willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt.
William McKenzie, Editorial columnist:
We don't know yet. It depends upon how good of an administrator and fundraiser he turns out to be.
Given his conservative Christian roots, I think he will fit in with part of the Baylor culture. And there will be probably be fewer Baylor students and alums offended by his Clinton prosecution than who are not offended, so I wouldn't dismiss him on just those grounds. It's not like he's becoming president of Berkeley.
The bigger issue is whether or not he will be a good educator. He led Pepperdine Law School for a few years, so he has some track record. But I don't think we will know the answer for a while.
Jim Mitchell, Editorial writer:
It's an odd choice. He's a political lightning rod, which to me makes him a weak choice. University presidents generally have to manage diverse constituencies: alums, faculty, big dollar donors, while trying to preserve academic integrity.
I don't know that Starr isn't capable of doing this, but I wonder. He was a law professor at Pepperdine and his courses probably were engaging regardless of how you come down on his role in the Whietwater invesigation and Clinton impeachment. But I don't see Starr as Robert Gates-type who transcends past politcal affiliations and jobs (CIA) to lead A&M. Maybe he'll prove me wrong.
Colleen McCain Nelson, Editorial writer:
Baylor University made a strange choice by hiring Ken Starr. I don't quibble with Starr's intelligence or academic credentials. Technically speaking, he may be well qualified for the job. But the reality is that Starr is a polarizing figure. There are plenty of folks -- some Baylor alums among them -- who think Starr led a witch hunt aimed at bringing down the Clinton White House. The president is a very public face for a university. And I'm not sure why Baylor would want someone at the helm who no doubt will spark negative reactions among a large number of people. That's not helpful for fundraising efforts or just building alumni support for the school. Add in the fact that Starr is not Baptist and has no ties to Baylor -- two qualities that historically have been important to the university -- and this hire becomes even more perplexing.
Newsletter sign-up: Today in History
Get Breaking News on your cell
Bio
E-mail
My immediate thought was that Starr is a weird fit, for all the reasons that people have voiced since the news broke.
Starr is a polarizing figure, and the university has been dealing with divisions in recent years. The last full-time (non-interim) president, John Lilley, got fired in 2008 after less that three years. School leaders thought he would be a uniter, but he failed at that mission.
Then there is Starr's pedigree. He's not a Baptist, doesn't have Baylor ties, hasn't headed a church-affiliated school, and hasn't served as a college president, period. Not everyone is looking for all that, but those things help round out the resume for some in the Baylor community.
Starr has a great legal mind, people say. But is that what Baylor needs today?
Texas universities, the refuge of scoundrels.
Rodger, while all that may be true, as someone in more dire need of a ... than any white man in history Kenneth Starr stands uniquely emblematic of all that Baylor represents.
Great arguments by several members of the board. How can he be effective as a leader and a fundraiser when a substantial number of people he'll have to interact with believe he led a witch hunt against a Democratic president.
Mike says "America, after all, is more polarized politically than at any point since 1900, polls show, and that division can be traced directly to Obama's policies and positions." Does he really believe that? Many, perhaps most of us believe the division can be traced to right wing hate radio, coupled with years of political tit for tat, culminating in Republican obstruction of any and all Obama initiatives in a crass effort aimed solely at winning back Congress and the White House.
Mike's been listening to Fox News far too much.
It's not as if they hired Amy Bishop to teach biology.
Am I correct in my assumption that the word "divisive" when discussing people is kind of the opposite of the word "vibrant" when talking about urban renewal?
Seems like whenever a liberal wants to criticize someone they don't know much about (or in the case of Starr, what they do know about him they don't like but can't really find fault in), they say he's "divisive."
In discussing how to revive downtown, South Dallas or what have you, if they can't specifically say what ought to happen, they say it should be "vibrant."
Both seem to be forms of the fallacy known as the glittering generality. The words mean different things to everyone, but generally have a positive (or negative) connotation. Therefore someone who knows nothing about what they are speaking (or does not want to let on what they really think) can use these code words and everyone "agrees" -- although on what who knows.
As for Starr himself, is he really that "divisive" among those who really matter here, namely those who are considering sending their kids to Baylor? My guess would be that he isn't. Most people who are likely to consider Baylor probably either (1) highly approve of anyone who did the job Starr did or (2) don't care about him and just want to know what type of education their kids might get. Either way, not "divisive."
Baylor students better be careful not to leave any "dna" on any blue dresses. They'll get hauled into Starr's office to explain / confess.
What Jim Mitchell said, with the additional question of what history he has for fundraising.
Mike - Obama's been in office just over a year. We've been politically polarized a good deal longer than that. Many who voted for him actually hoped he could turn that around; and he is trying which is why he is taking considerable heat from liberals over his continuing attempts at bipartisanship, and a number of his appointments of Republicans.
Hashimoto: "America, after all, is more polarized politically than at any point since 1900, polls show, and that division can be traced directly to Obama's policies and positions."
I don't know what newspaper Hashimoto reads, but he might want to think about broadening his horizons.
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, but am adding my voice partly because I'm the only Baylor graduate on the Editorial Board. As my coworkers know, my first reaction to this announcement was not pretty. I do find Starr a polarizing figure, something that Baylor doesn't need after what feels to this alum like a long line of problematic selections. The days of Abner McCall and Herb Reynolds, while definitely of the "imperial presidency" type, strike me as better days for Baylor.
That said, I'm not plugged in at all to the school where I graduated from, so I have no better sense of this by virtue of my Baylor diploma.
I was truly shocked when I joined the Morning News in 1980 and discovered the laughing stock that Baylor was perceived to be. I got a great education there, but I had no fewer than four "big bosses" at the DMN who seriously considered Baylor a poor excuse for a college. Perhaps it was the Baptist piece of it ... although I suspect these same bosses gave high marks to, say, Notre Dame.
The fact is that Baylor has all too often made the headlines with a wince-evoking scandal or controversy, which is why I'm much quicker to ID myself as a Jayhawk or Longhorn Mom than a Baylor alum.
So roll all this history together and I probably expect the worst. I'm not a Starr fan. But putting politics aside, I will be curious to see whether his small-law-school experience can take a medium-size university in a good direction.
What bothers me most about this is that people are mad at Starr simple because he investigated Clinton. If Clinton hadn’t committed crimes then he would not have gotten himself into the position he did. To try to hound the public official who happened to be the one to investigate Clinton is really just a form of vengeance.
Jeff:
You wrote “Does he really believe that? Many, perhaps most of us believe the division can be traced to right wing hate radio, coupled with years of political tit for tat, culminating in Republican obstruction of any and all Obama initiatives in a crass effort aimed solely at winning back Congress and the White House.”
This is trying to sugarcoat Obama’s problems. There is no doubt that Obama and Democrats have perused a hard left-wing policy over the last year. To say that it is the result of “right wing hate radio” is to ignore the fact that most people in the US are not left-wing and don’t approve of these policies.
“Mike's been listening to Fox News far too much.”.
Oh, we are going to start complaining about Fox News now are we? As if that somehow made any sense or had anything to do with this subject. How ignorant can a person be to try doing name calling like this and thinking that it will somehow impress people. Link [1] is to a Politico article titled “Poll: Fox most trusted name in news”.
[1] politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html
Zachary - maybe your side will take over the Senate at mid-term (like they did after Clinton's two years).
Then Republicans can rehire Starr to go after the birther issue. When they've exhausted that with millions of our money -
Starr can branch off into Obama's sex life. Can impeachment be far behind?
No.
I'm still trying to work out the Obama's attempt at bi-partisan legislation vs. Starr's divisiveness. Starr tried very hard to be fair and thorough in his investigations. There was no hidden agenda then.
Obama and the Dems haven't included the Republicans in anything. They can't agree with the Republicans about anything. Indeed, they can't agree with themselves on anything, or else they would have passed everything with their super majority for the last year.
Both parties are broken, but the Dems are far more fractured.
@Mike - dude, this nation has been highly polarized for a long time, and it got especially heinous when Bush decided to go into Iraq. However, the democrats tried to trust their commander in chief and the news didn't report on all the protest going on. Furthermore, living in the South, you may not have heard a lot of polarization, but I was in a large northern city at the time, and trust me: it was polarized.
As for Starr, I honestly don't have a problem with it. He's not my style, but neither is Baylor. I think he fits in with their environment and brings some national attention, which Baylor needs.
Zachary,
First, who says Obama's policies are left wing? Trying to save our economy from disaster is left wing? Maybe to you, but not to those of us in the political center.
Second, I didn't call Mike a single name. I simply suggested he's parrotting Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et al whose rants are geared toward publicity, not policy.
Finally, are you calling me ignorant? It's that kind of hateful name-calling that is dragging our country down. If that's the best you can do, and I've read enough of your postings to believe it is, I feel sorry for you.
Starr is only “divisive” or a “lightning rod” if you are a Clinton enabler. I recommend you read what Starr and his staff had to go through with the Clinton White House feeding their media groupies with leaks and other dirt digging by people like James Carville. It wasn’t like Starr was drilling dry holes. He got convictions in Arkansas and the big boy impeached. Clinton was the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and lied through his teeth under oath and before the American people. Hillary was “unable” to find her Whitewater billing records until one day they suddenly showed up right there in her living quarters. Clinton was impeached and had his law license suspended. His spouse barely escaped indictment herself. Bill has gone on to making lots of dollars making speeches and his spouse is now secretary of state. If they can go on to other work with their records how come people make a big deal about a guy who has a spotless record and never had his law license suspended?
obama's policies aren't left wing--taking over not just one, but two giant corporations (GM and Chrysler), even though both had filed for bankruptcy protection under federal law, then firing their CEOs and replacing them with a government incompetent. Proposing massive health care reform, socializing medicine, and, in the meantime, appointing at least three individuals as "czars" who have known communist/socialist ties. spending, in just two years, more than 2.5 trillion dollars more than federal tax revenues support, on social welfare programs which are not authorized by the constitution. yes, these are left wing. yes, these are socialist. yes these are unconstitutional actions.
the evidence gathered by Starr on clinton's Whitewater grand jury testimony showed that he had lied. clinton admitted to the leaders of the democratic party in both house and senate that he had lied before the grand jury. but, because of the hypocrisy of the democratic party, they put out the false notion that "everyone lies about sex", as if that made mr. clinton's deliberate, wilful violation of perjury laws okay. sadly, because the rules of the senate were changed at the insistence of the democrats for the impeachment trial, the vote to convict mr. clinton on the perjury charges failed by only two or three votes. all democrats, even though they KNEW clinton had lied under oath, a violation of law, voted not to convict. so did enough republicans (RINOS) so that clinton was not convicted. clinton then later boasted that he had fought the impeachment because he was supporting the constitution. this from a man who admitted he had lied under oath?
If Kenneth Starr belongs anywhere, it is in Texas,
along with all the other brain-dead,right wing,religous, ultra-conservatives.
If Kenneth Starr belongs anywhere, it is in Texas,
along with all the other brain-dead,right wing,religous, ultra-conservatives.
I believe Ken Starr is a native of San Antonio. His wife may be from these parts as well. Like many of us, he may need to be near aging parents or in-laws. Though the view may be beautiful from the windows of Pepperdine U., California has dreadful state income taxes, unlike Texas. As one editorial board member noted, Starr has very fundamentalist Christian roots (Church of Christ, I think) and will fit right in at Baylor. Who knows, they may again ban dancing. Can the women wear shorts yet?
Hi, thank you very much. good job.
Ken Starr's a good fit, although Karl rove or Franklin Graham might have been better.
Actually, while I may question his appointment and his politics, Mr Starr has done some good work both inside and outside of the government. Those that would like to bemoan his so called lack of connection to any church led school, need to take another look at Pepperdine University, which is in fact affliated with the Churches of Christ, whom in my opinion are a little more balanced than many conservative christians give credit for. Please give the gentleman a chance to excel, and maybe the drier central Texas climate might make everyone more peaceable. In fact it is in Washington that the ugly comes out in alot of people, take a look at what happened with both of the Bushes, and several others, before and since.
Actually, while I may question his appointment and his politics, Mr Starr has done some good work both inside and outside of the government. Those that would like to bemoan his so called lack of connection to any church led school, need to take another look at Pepperdine University, which is in fact affliated with the Churches of Christ, whom in my opinion are a little more balanced than many conservative christians give credit for. Please give the gentleman a chance to excel, and maybe the drier central Texas climate might make everyone more peaceable. In fact it is in Washington that the ugly comes out in alot of people, take a look at what happened with both of the Bushes, and several others, before and since.
Horrible, embarrassing decision. I think I will burn my diplomas.
Jeff:
“First, who says Obama's policies are left wing? Trying to save our economy from disaster is left wing?”.
Obama arranged for GM and Chrysler to be handed over to the UAW. That is going to strike more people as being left wing. He also talked about prosecuting Bush era people for torture which is also left wing. Then there are tax hikes on the wealthy. He is also taking about amnesty for illegal aliens and more gun control in the future. Then there is his attempt at health care reform. He also wants to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. I’m not sure what Obama would have to do to make you view him as a left wing.
“Second, I didn't call Mike a single name. I simply suggested he's parrotting Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et al whose rants are geared toward publicity, not policy.”.
Well, saying he is parroting someone is name calling isn’t it? You are saying he is so simple minded that he can’t think for himself. There is also the implication that Fox News is a bad source of news and he is too stupid to know that.
“Finally, are you calling me ignorant? It's that kind of hateful name-calling that is dragging our country down.”.
The ignorant part was you thinking you could engage in that name calling and people would somehow be impressed by it. You are now claiming I’m name calling because I pointed out what you are doing. I don’t think people will buy they either.
"he ignorant part was you thinking you could engage in that name calling and people would somehow be impressed by it. You are now claiming I’m name calling because I pointed out what you are doing."
Ah, the 'I know you you are but what am I?" stratagem. Digital journalism at its finest.
No, Zach, we mostly all know you like name-calling.
Zachary and Agsforever - rest assured, you have a voice on the board (hello Hashimoto) and your side is always represented. The beast will be fed if it yells long enough. Fox and the Tea Partiers make sure your voice is disproportionately represented.
Impeachment is NOT off the table. There's still hope for your side. Ken Starr proved that. It could happen again.
Ken Starr and Baylor U. Priceless.
PatGreenberg:
You wrote “No, Zach, we mostly all know you like name-calling.”.
I didn’t start the name calling but I certainly don’t mind pointing it out when other people start doing it. If they don’t want their actions pointed out they shouldn’t do them in the first place. There is no reason for people to put up with snitty remarks like that.
Ah yes, it is moderate to impeach a president for oral sex but extremist left wing to prosecute politicians for unconstitutional treatment of criminals.
Classic Zachary. Love it.
Let's have a link to the "more gun control in the future" issue. I haven't heard him speak on this at all.
Jmac:
You wrote “Zachary and Agsforever - rest assured, you have a voice on the board (hello Hashimoto) and your side is always represented.”.
So 1 conservative among all of those liberals is being “represented”? It is in some respect, but then what are the chances of Hashimoto winning a vote of any issue? If you pack your editorial board with liberals you are going to reliably get liberal editorials.
“Fox and the Tea Partiers make sure your voice is disproportionately represented.”.
Link [1] is to a Gallup poll showing that 40% of the country says they are conservative and only 21% say they are liberal. There is nothing “disproportionately” about conservative voices. If you want to see some “disproportionately represented” then at least 60% of the media is liberal while only 21% of Americans are.
Link [2] is to a Politico article titled “Poll: Fox most trusted name in news”.
[1] gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
[2] politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html
Really?:
“Ah yes, it is moderate to impeach a president for oral sex…”.
It always astounds me when people bring up this claim. Do they think that no one remembers why Clinton was actually impeached? Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury. A federal judge (a black female Democrat appointed by Carter) fined him $100,000 for lying in her courtroom about Monica Lewinsky. If Clinton had been an ordinary citizen, that would have gotten him 5 years in a federal prison. Because he was President, he was impeached instead. If he hadn’t committed perjury it would have been a scandal, but he wouldn’t have been impeached over it. He basically crossed the line from private business to criminal activity by lying under oath.
“Classic Zachary. Love it.”
So you try to make a claim about it being oral sex rather than perjury and they you say this? It’s rather easy to tell who is lying here.
“Let's have a link to the "more gun control in the future" issue. I haven't heard him speak on this at all.”
Links [1] and [2] are public statements about the desire to end the so called “gun show loophole”, repeal the Tiahrt amendment, and reimpose an assault weapons ban.
[1] abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=2
[2] opposingviews.com/i/obama-outlines-gun-control-policy
So 1 conservative among all of those liberals is being “represented”?
The editorials are liberal. They must be. I agree with most of them.
But when it comes time to vote (President, Senators,. they vote with you, Zachary. They pull the lever with Agsforever in their endorsements. (they did stand up for KBH, but will they stand up against Perry in the general?) There's always hope, but so far I've been laughed at and I've been wrong when it gets to the final say.
Your side wins in Texas.
Jmac:
You wrote “But when it comes time to vote (President, Senators,. they vote with you, Zachary. They pull the lever with Agsforever in their endorsements. (they did stand up for KBH, but will they stand up against Perry in the general?)”.
The public doesn’t actually know whether the DMN's editorial board recommended these people or not. Keven Ann Willey can override any decision made by the members of the editorial board. The managing editor of the DMN can override her decision. The Belo family has the final say.
The DMN never says if a decision was overridden. It could be that the Belo family likes someone like Bush or some other reason.
I was shocked at first, but the more I thought about it, he may prove to be an excellene decision. As Michael appropriately states "a former federal judge, a former Solicitor General of the United States, a former Pepperdine Law School dean and an accomplished author and scholar" ain't too shabby!
He didn't go looking for the Whitewater/Monica scandal, but he showed the integrity to do the work demanded by his professional oath. Perhaps since this is so foreign to people it feels DIVISIVE!
BTW - BU alum with son there and a daughter on the way... And, honestly, it's a much better school today than when I was there. SIC 'EM!
Hmm, I would like to know more detail of Starr's work as dean of Pepperdine's law school.
Frankly, we all owe Starr a debt of gratitude for his work in the Vince Foster/Whitewater/Lewinsky/perjury mess. In my estimation, he was an earnest, vigorous, and honest prosecutor as an independent counsel.
And therein lies the nut of the issue: It took a man of integrity like Starr to show just how truly awful the independent counsel law was.
All those who wail, whine, lie, and snivel about what Starr did, ought to man up and read the record. Starr executed his duties according to the letter and spirit of the independent counsel law, Janet Reno's direction, and the panel of judges that controlled what issues Starr was to investigate. Star got some real, no-bull prosecutions that brought down some truly bad folks. He also got WJ Clinton to show his true character as a man who would lie, commit perjury, and use all the powers at his disposal to hide his malfeasance.
Despite Starr's integrity, honesty, and compliance with the laws & guidelines he was given, he was able to demonstrate to all who watched just how bad it was to have a prosecutor who (in effect) did not have to answer to anyone (for the topics in his purview).
I am so very glad that Congress did not re-authorize the independent counsel law when it came up for renewal. The Democrats had learned the lesson that bad law can be used to beat BOTH Dems & Repubs over the head.
Previous independent counsels who went on witch hunts and were politically motivated could be blamed for the deleterious effects of the IC law.
_It took a good & fair man to show that unchecked power is a bad thing in and of itself._ We ought to have knownthatalready, but somefolks are slow learners.
What difference does it make, Zachary, who pulls the final lever - the board as a whole votes with you in their endorsements.
You and Agsforever. You and the Tea Partiers.
Before he takes this or any "job" he should pay the taxpayers back the 52 million he spent on his so-called investigation. But then again maybe the RNC should since they tried to push in so much further than it should have been pushed.
Perry Mason:
You wrote “Before he takes this or any "job" he should pay the taxpayers back the 52 million he spent on his so-called investigation.”.
So the guy who actually broke the law (Bill Clinton) should not have to pay the cost, but the prosecutor who found out Clinton broke the law should? Somehow this doesn’t make sense to me.
“But then again maybe the RNC should since they tried to push in so much further than it should have been pushed.”.
Janet Reno (Clinton’s AG) approved every area that was investigated. If this was “so much further than it should have been” then why did she do it? Also, do you have the slightest proof of any RNC involvement?
I love love love how liberals will deny Clinton's foibles even in the face of impeachment. Carville and his minions managed to make the hearings longer and more expensive than they had to be. And the resonating corruption rings still. Remember the how a Clinton appointee got caught with secure documents hidden in his pants and got his security clearance revoked? Starr was appointed by Reno who was in turn a Clinton appointee. Starr did his job.
As for coming to Baylor, he's a former dean of a highly regarded law school at a private university. The days of having former Baptist pastors making decisions are gone. If Baylor wants to get out of the serious economic problems with its medical school it will take someone who has in depth knowledge of the law and who is intelligent enough to craft a solution. For all the handwringing by liberals bemoaning that someone who revealed Clinton's clay feet should be made president of Baylor, get a clue. Starr will do well by Baylor and hopefully will do so in the spirit of his deep personal faith.